Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I want to commend Senator Shaheen for a typically thoughtful and compelling speech concerning the proposed nomination of Mr. Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. I will follow by rising to express my opposition to Mr. Pete Hegseth's nomination to be Secretary of Defense.

  Mr. Hegseth is the ninth Defense Secretary nominee I have considered as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have voted in favor of all of his predecessors, including those in the first Trump administration. While some former Secretaries and I have disagreed

politically, there was always an understanding that partisanship has no place when it comes to providing for our men and women in uniform.

  Indeed, the weight of this position--Secretary of Defense--is enormous. The Secretary is responsible for leading a Department of three and a half million servicemembers and civilians; an annual budget of nearly $900 billion; and hundreds of thousands of aircraft, ships, submarines, combat vehicles, satellites, and our nuclear arsenal. They also play a powerful role with allies, partners, and adversaries abroad, having to meet, communicate, and coordinate with a whole range of individuals from many different ethnic groups and many different religious groups.

That is part of the role of Secretary of Defense.

  At a bare minimum, former Secretaries of Defense have had the experience, wisdom, and character to do that job. Mr. Hegseth, however, is simply not qualified to meet the overwhelming demands to be

Secretary of Defense.

  Last week, the Armed Services Committee held a nomination hearing for Mr. Hegseth. During the hearing, my colleagues and I raised a number of concerning reports about him. A variety of sources, including his own writings, implicate him with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other troubling issues.

  Instead of addressing these reports, many of which are documented and on the record, he dodged and deferred. He did not attempt to alleviate the fears my colleagues and I have that there is blackmail material and a pattern of abuse in his personal history that could be used by adversaries to try to influence him, to try to deflect him from his sworn obligations and duties to the United States, and, frankly, to embarrass him as Secretary of Defense.

These reports are unlike anything we have seen for a nominee of this importance, and if they are confirmed, they would undermine his ability to be an effective leader.

As I have said for months, it is critical that the FBI and the Trump transition team carry out an exhaustive background investigation on Mr. Hegseth. In that regard, I must say that I am extremely disappointed by the investigation process.

Before Mr. Hegseth's hearing, I was briefed by the transition team on the findings of the background check. I was alarmed that investigators had neglected to contact critical witnesses and whistleblowers, and I urged them to reopen the investigation.

 

During my experience on the Armed Services Committee, it is unprecedented that the FBI has returned to my office two more times--as

recently as last night--to provide additional information on a nominee.

Frankly, I still do not believe the background investigation is complete.

Last week, after the hearing, I was made aware that an individual with disturbing information about Mr. Hegseth has been interviewed by the FBI in December as part of the background investigation. However, their testimony was not adequately included in the briefing provided by the Trump transition team. As such, I asked this individual to recount to me directly the testimony that she had provided to the FBI. I was disturbed by what I received.

Earlier this week, the Armed Services Committee received a sworn affidavit from Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law that alleges

specific incidents of Mr. Hegseth's alcohol abuse, threatening and abusive behavior toward his second wife, and a repeated pattern of

offensive public misconduct. The affidavit was signed and sworn under penalty of perjury, and it has been made available to all Senators to review, and I hope they do. I will share a few examples from her sworn testimony, which she gave to FBI investigators.

Once, while drunk in uniform--which is a violation of military law--Mr. Hegseth was so inebriated that his brother had to carry him out of a Minneapolis strip club. This occurred during a drill weekend with the Minnesota National Guard.

The FBI was also told that Mr. Hegseth's second wife had an escape plan that involved texting a ``safe word'' to her friends and family to urgently request help without putting herself in more danger. This escape plan was executed on at least one occasion. On at least one

occasion, his second wife hid in her closet out of fear.

In many detailed examples, the FBI was told that Mr. Hegseth regularly became so drunk that he passed out, vomited, and had to be carried out of family events and public settings, sometimes shouting sexually and racially offensive comments.

My point is this: We know that Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law testified to the FBI about his history of abuse, alcoholism, and

disgraceful public behavior; however, we know now that her testimony was not adequately included in the Trump transition team's background briefing to the Senate. This begs the question, what else is missing from the FBI report?

The Senate is not considering a low-level appointee right now; we are advising and consenting on a nominee for Secretary of Defense. We cannot risk installing a leader who may have a history that is exploitable by our adversaries, nor can we risk confirming a Secretary

of Defense who has shown that he is incapable of being responsible, accountable, and law-abiding 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as that job requires.

 

In addition to Mr. Hegseth's troubling personal conduct, I also have grave concerns about actions he would take as Secretary of Defense.

During his nomination hearing, I asked Mr. Hegseth about disturbing efforts underway within the Department of Defense to intimidate

military personnel and their families and reports that the Trump administration may implement a so-called purge board to screen senior

military officers for ``unfitness'' to lead. This raises the chilling possibility that the Trump administration may fire officers who are

deemed to have the wrong political view. I believe that the Tuesday firing of U.S. Coast Guard Commandant ADM Linda Fagan, who by all objective accounts was an admirable leader, proves that the purge is underway.

  Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth would not categorically condemn those efforts during his hearing and instead talked about ``meritocracy'' and “restoring accountability” within the senior ranks of the military.

If the Senate confirms Mr. Hegseth this week, who will be fired at the Department of Defense next week? I doubt very seriously it will be based upon merit or anything else other than a political agenda. That would be the beginning of the unraveling of the core element of our military. It is not political. It serves neither party nor person. It protects and defends the Constitution of the United States. If we lose

that, we will have lost something that is, I think, the key to our success not only as a military force but as a nation.

Despite Mr. Hegseth's comment, the U.S. military is already one of the finest meritocracies in the world. Every member of the military is in their position because of their ability. They are chosen by boards of other senior officers who evaluate their performance, who look

closely at what they have done, and render their best professional opinion of the capability of that person to move on and assume a

particular job.

Every member of the military is in their position because of their ability. When there is always a possibility that you need to count on

the person next to you to save your life, there is no other choice but meritocracy and value. There is no other choice that you must or can make other than to pick someone whose focus, whose heart, and whose spirit is to protect their fellow soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, guardians--not to exploit them, to make a judgment about their colleagues not based on their political affiliations but on the fact

that they are a fellow soldier, sailor, or airman.

I see a dangerous, dangerous point at which we will divert from this historic and compelling approach and become a political organization.

We have seen it happen in other places around the world, where militaries are undermined and subjected by political leaders who have a particular political point of view and passion, and they become essentially not an army but an extension of the political aspirations

of the great leader. We can't see that here in America.

Our present servicemembers can and should be confident that with hard work and skill and character, they will be successful in their military careers. That is the key criteria.

Indeed, this very meritocracy would prevent a person like Mr. Hegseth from rising higher in the ranks of the military. The totality of his

own writings and conduct would disqualify any servicemember from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being

confirmed as the Secretary of Defense.

If there was evidence that a serving officer in the military was drunk in uniform, in a strip club, if there was evidence that a senior military officer was engaged in sexual relations while married to another woman, having just fathered a child from another woman, I can guarantee you that officer's career would end swiftly, either by resignation or by court martial.

Moreover, our servicemembers, since the birth of this country 249 years ago, have taken an oath to the Constitution. Their mission is to

protect the country and all of its citizens and the ideals this country was founded on, which should endure no matter who is President or what political party is in power. Mr. Hegseth's idea of meritocracy, however, seems to be that servicemembers should pledge fealty to a

President who will be in power for only 4 years and fit the ideas of a party that only half of this Nation supports. There is no faster way to undermine the lethality and morale of our Nation's military--and support of the Nation's citizens for it--than to inject politics into

the system. Mr. Hegseth, if confirmed, will not improve our military but destabilize it and weaken the institution.

Further, during his hearing, Mr. Hegseth failed to convince me and many of my colleagues that he is capable of running any organization remotely as complex as the Department of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has been the head of two separate veterans organizations. From 2008 through 2010, he led the organization Veterans for Freedom, which had an annual budget of less than $10 million. Each year he was in charge, outlays exceeded revenues, until the organization verged on bankruptcy and had to be merged with another group.

From 2011 until 2016, Mr. Hegseth ran the organization Concerned Veterans for America. During each of those 5 years, tax records show that the organization spent more than it raised.

 

If this is how Mr. Hegseth manages organizations with a comparatively small staff and budget, how can anyone have confidence that he will be able to effectively manage an organization with hundreds of multi-million- and multi-billion-dollar contracts that literally drive the economy of many parts of this country?

 

If confirmed, Mr. Hegseth would be the leader of millions of men and women of every race, religion, and political belief. He can only be an effective leader of an effective fighting force if he has respect for those he leads, and they trust he supports them. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth has shown disdain and outright hostility for many he would lead. His writings and his speeches make clear his opposition to diversity issues. He has said:

       Diversity is not our strength. Unity is.

On a recent podcast, he said:

       I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.

Mr. Hegseth has also written:

The other side, the left, is not our friend. We are not esteemed colleagues, nor mere political opponents. We are foes. Either we win or they win. We agree on nothing else.

That is not the spirit to bring to lead the men and women of our military forces.

When I joined the Army as a young officer in the 1970s, the U.S. military was rife with racial tension, women were prohibited from

serving in most roles, gay servicemembers were banned, and we relied on a national draft to fill our ranks. The soldiers I served with were proud to do so, but it was certainly not the Nation's most capable military by any standard.

 

We have made great progress since then. Today, the Department of Defense is fully integrated, every race and religion is accepted, women serve in all combat roles and leadership positions, sexual orientation is irrelevant to service, and the All-Volunteer Force visibly reflects the Nation it protects.

 

Our military is more diverse than it has ever been, but, more importantly, it is more lethal than it has ever been. This is not a

coincidence. This diversity and nonpartisanship is the bedrock of our military power. But Mr. Hegseth seeks to destroy that.

One other strength of the U.S. military which has made us respected around the world is the adherence to the rule of law and clear

standards on the battlefield to protect civilians and treat prisoners with humanity. Once again, this nominee for Secretary of Defense, if

confirmed, will put that principle in doubt. Mr. Hegseth has championed the pardoning of military members who were turned in by their fellow soldiers and SEALs as well as military contractors convicted of killing 14 Iraqi civilians without cause. He has advocated for the reinstitution of interrogation methods like waterboarding that have been defined as torture and has belittled the advice and counsel of the Judge Advocates General while on deployment.

 In his book “The War on Warriors,” he wrote:

     Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice

     more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren't we just better off in winning our wars

     according to our own rules?!

How can our military personnel trust each other and the partners and allies we need in this dangerous world trust the United States if such rules and conventions are tossed aside? What a bounty this would give our adversaries.

And how would we have the moral authority to criticize the North Vietnamese, for example, who tortured pilots like our colleague John

McCain if our Secretary of Defense is saying waterboarding is perfectly fine?

We wouldn't. In fact, I think our pilots would be very much concerned if they felt there are no rules of the game and that, if they went down behind enemy lines, they would be just brutalized, tortured, et cetera, and we don't even have a moral objection to it.

Finally, my top priority as a U.S. Senator has always been national security, and my colleagues, I hope, know this. I don't seek partisan

wins or the political spotlight. I want to do right by our men and women in uniform, and I refuse to compromise or cut corners on national security issues.

The greatest privilege I have had in my life is to lead soldiers, to understand and respect them, to do my best by example and leadership so that they would have confidence that their best interest was my sole interest. That is not what I heard from Mr. Hegseth, and that is not what he would bring to the Department of Defense.

Process is important for a nomination of this sort. Other than me, Mr. Hegseth refused to meet with any of my Democratic colleagues on the committee--an unprecedented act, a signal that he is not trying to be a nonpartisan Secretary. He is, in fact, going to be very partisan--again, injecting politics into the Department of Defense, which is, in my view, fatal.

The committee was denied a second round of questioning of Mr. Hegseth, although we needed it at that time. And I should point out,

historically, when Secretary Hagel was here, we had three rounds of questioning; when Secretary Carter was here, we had two rounds of questioning. So the precedent was strongly in favor of an additional round. So we have essentially been denied the kind of access that would have revealed more of Mr. Hegseth's qualities, conduct, and thoughts.

And that is not appropriate.

And as I said previously, the FBI background check was inadequate--again, the first time I have ever had a background check supplemented by two additional addendums of background check. That is not the way I have experienced this.

So I would hope my colleagues are a bit alarmed and are asking themselves: Does this individual have the character and the competence and the composure to be Secretary of Defense? I, frankly, am not convinced and am stunned, in many respects, at the lack of scrutiny which too many of my colleagues are using to consider this nomination.

The lives of thousands and thousands of men and women in uniform, the security of our Nation--and, indeed, the world--is at stake. I hope we will all take time to reflect on whether we are ready to confirm Mr. Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense.

I will personally urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.